[P]residential advisor Valerie Jarrett … tweeted, that “If there’s one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting women from violence.” Jarrett’s tweet comes the same hour Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to serve in combat. [more]
No, not those wimmin, those wimmin.
No, not that kind of violence, that kind of violence.
Wimmin need special treatment from the law, but they should be treated the same as men under the law.
Or sumpthin’ …
(What? Oh, I dunno. I get sooo confused when Pogs open their pie holes and let their words drivel out.)
Women serving on the front line? Yeah, so?
Look, I’m sure it’s okay. No, really.
I’m sure that when the draft is reinstated (i.e. “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”), your “darling little girl” won’t be required to serve on the front lines to have her face and body disfigured in combat, just as your son won’t be required to serve on the front lines if he‘s drafted. [/sarc]
You’re a brave one, Leon.
… as are all the Progettes above draftable age.
I don’t care what pseudo-equality bilge you’ve been sold — as a man, it’s your friggin’ duty to protect women.
The least a guy can do is teach wimmin how to shoot, help ‘em buy a weapon, and let ‘em carry concealed.
The protection against violence thing then becomes a lot more equal, and the resulting reduced need to be accompanied by a male protector enhances femalekind’s independence and upward mobility.
God created Man, but Samuel Colt made them equal. (or similar sentiments of indeterminate authorship)
(What? Yeah, or let ‘em go to kick-boxing class.)